In the article, the author concludes that people in general are less concerned than ten years ago about controlling their consumption of red meat of fatty cheeses. To support this conclusion, the author cites three different stores as evidence. The store named Heart's Delight now also offers a great variety of fatty cheeses, although it traditionally specializes in organic foods. The next two stores are in great contrast in their economic performance where the old vegetarian restaurant makes only a modest profit, whereas the owners of the new House of Beef across the street make high profits. The conclusion of the author is not convincing because the evidences are not sufficient.
In the first place, the author bases his conclusion on the generalization he draws from the changes and economic performance of three stores probably in his neighborhood. These three stores may not present the correct picture because they may not be representative of all the stores in the country. It is possible that organic stores in other part of the city or the country enjoy great economic success and popularity, while the beef stores are suffering financially as people consume less beef out of health considerations.
Secondly, the fact that traditional store now also sells fatty cheeses does not mean that people now are less concerned about the health risk posed by such food. The reason that makes the store offer such products may point to a demand of such unhealthy foods at least in the local area. But the reason might be an increase in the per capital consumption of fatty cheese. For example, it might be because another store that offers such food just closes because of not enough demand, and the organic food store takes advantages of this opportunity by offering such food as an alternative source. If this is the case, the fact may prove otherwise that people are more concerned about their diets.
Thirdly, the difference between the economic success of the vegetarian restaurant and the beef house does not lie in the fact that people now eat more red meat than ten years ago. We need to know their performance ten years ago in order to make the comparison. It is possible the beef house may be less successful than ten years ago. In addition, many other factors can contribute to the difference in the profitability of the two restaurants. One possible reason is that the owners of the House of Beef across may be better at operating at their businesses, for example, by better cost controls, even if the revenue may have been decreasing. It also be noted that restaurant consumption is only part of the total consumption. It is possible that people now less red meat at home.
To sum up, the conclusion of the author is not convincing because the evidences cited are not sufficient to make that conclusion stand. To strengthen his argument, the author needs to approve that what happen to the three stores are also happening in the rest of the cities and the whole country. Also, the author needs to show that people are not reducing their consumption of unhealthy food at home while increasing their dinning outside.作者: jessie5330 时间: 2012-12-20 23:38 谢谢分享哈～作者: skywant 时间: 2012-12-21 11:23
的确都是长句啊写得很好~这种文章要有一定的写作水平才搞得出来啊。内容很亮难怪lz作文高分。我一战的3.5分出来我都傻眼了。我在看模板以及七宗罪的时候感觉有的论据十分扯，但是其他CDer说就背背那个就得高分了我很疑惑（可能他们运用七宗罪比比较厉害），总之……得好好练习寻找critic的点，作文也不能松懈了~作者: 飘TT 时间: 2013-11-14 16:39
谢谢分享~~~
谢谢分享哈～